Atheism Thread

[Anonymous]

makes perfect sense

 

[realitybites]

I have a lot of respect for atheists and listen to their theories and agree on some. But I believe in God.

And that is peachy keen with me. Just don't call atheists morons. It is after all an argumentum ad hominem, an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it, rather than the claim itself. And thus, a logical fallacy of argument.

 

[Skylarker]

And that is peachy keen with me. Just don't call atheists morons. It is after all an argumentum ad hominem, an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it, rather than the claim itself. And thus, a logical fallacy of argument.

You know a tree by its fruit. Jesus said that!

 

[Iona Mink]

You know a tree by its fruit. Jesus said that!

God hates figs.

 

[Skylarker]

 

[Skylarker]

 

[Iona Mink]

But, atheism is not a theory. It states nothing. Show me why you believe it is a theory. Is not believing in pink elephants a theory? How?

If you are gonna be a member of the tribe, it would be helpful to have a good understanding of the terms and concepts that atheists sometimes employ. And at the very least, an accurate definition of atheism. You wouldn't, after all, want to profess to agree with something or rather, in this case, "the nothing" unless you knew what you were agreeing to.

But, I'm glad to have you on board. Cheers.

In order to be an atheist do you have to be self righteous?

 

[Skylarker]

In order to be an atheist do you have to be self righteous?

I think anyone who speaks didactically about their belief system has to be a little full of themselves.

 

[Master Felcher]

I don't believe in laundry.

I don't believe in Skylarker

 

[Deleted member 1074]

In order to be an atheist do you have to be self righteous?

I've found it's usually the case. I have no time for fanatics on either side of the board...

 

[Iona Mink]

I think anyone who speaks didactically about their belief system has to be a little full of themselves.

I've found it's usually the case. I have no time for fanatics on either side of the board...

I hope there is a heaven just so all the sanctimonious atheists have to spend eternity with the evangelical Christians.

 

[Skylarker]

I hope there is a heaven just so all the sanctimonious atheists have to spend eternity with the evangelical Christians.

There's a good joke, you can change it around, but the jist of it is that a Catholic dies and he goes to Heaven and St. Peter or something gives him a tour, and they get to a big building and the guide turns to him and whispers, "keep your voice down as we pass this place," and the dude asks "why" and the guide answers, "Those are the Baptists; they think they're the only ones here."

Kind of sums it up for me. Self-righteous assholes, the lot of 'em.

 

[realitybites]

Maybe calling him a "genius" was going a little far but he did set forth a revolutionary concept in science that moved away from atheism into an actual cohesive, structured explanation of how we could have gotten here without some divine hand pulling the strings.

When I say there were holes in his bag I just meant that while I respect him [Darwin] offering an alternative to some mythical "poof! there were animals" and "poof! there were people" notion of creation, evolution doesn't really make any sense to me either. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand it biologically, or scientifically, I don't know. It just doesn't add up, something about the concept of everything coming from primordial ooze...I don't know, I don't buy it. I don't like the way that every time scientists can't explain something they just keep adding a million years to the Earth's history.

Natural selection is the drive that powers evolution. Evolution simply means change over time. Nature selects genes that result in organisms changing. This is a very, very slow process as it occurs in nature. However, we can provide proof that evolution occurs in the lab using fruit flies. Darwin's theory does not explain how the universe came to exist, nor does it try to. Darwin was a biologist. Questions about why we exist and how we came to exist are usually the domain of metaphysics philosophers and physicists. The Big Bang theory explains how the universe came into being. But, it does not answer the first cause: how did we get from nothing to something. The god hypothesis does not answer this question either. Because god is something. It still also would come from nothing. How did a complex thing such as god come from nothing? Science tells us that things do not go from complex to simple. They start simple and become more complex. Evolution is a theory that explains how simple organisms evolved to become more complex. Bacteria to humans, for example.

Maybe I'm just not smart enough to understand it biologically, or scientifically, I don't know. It just doesn't add up, something about the concept of everything coming from primordial ooze...I don't know, I don't buy it.

This is not your fault. This is a failure of our science education system in the U.S.A. Students educated in the UK and western Europe have a much better understanding of evolution. And these countries have many more atheists among their populations. There is a wonderful book written by Richard Dawkins titled The Magic of Reality. It is beautifully written and illustrated. Although he wrote it for a young audience, it is by no means too simple for adults. I learned a great deal from it. And I think it would be a wonderful book for you to read with your children. I bet you can get a copy at your library. Or, if you would be willing to read it on an electronic device, I can share a PDF version with you. Just PM me with an email address where I can sent it.

I don't like the way that every time scientists can't explain something they just keep adding a million years to the Earth's history.

Scientists are not adding on years to their calculation of how old the universe is in response to religionists or others who object. Religion isn't driving science. Scientists are continually modifying theories--either refuting them or gathering evidence to support them, as our tools and technologies advance. And we create new mathematical models. Before telescopes were invented, there was no evidence to suggest that other universes exist. Now with the Hubble telescope we are finding new evidence and developing new theories to explain the age of our universe. It has nothing to do with trying to prove religion or god is false. It is about trying to understand our natural world.

I didn't claim God created the universe. I questioned atheism. Atheists are allowed to question, but no one can question them without being branded as Christian? Seems unfair.

I don't mind be questioned at all. If I can't explain my position then maybe I shouldn't have that position in the first place.

I don't know what created God, or even if there is one. That's what I'm saying when I say this conversation is ultimately pointless. No matter what you believe, none of it really makes any sense or can be proven. At least, not with the data we have accumulated so far. I just think there is more to the story that has either not been discovered or has been suppressed.

All science starts with questions. Some questions get answered. Some don't have answers yet. This does not mean we should stop asking the questions. One day we may have the tools and methods necessary to get the answers. If we didn't ask, there would be no such thing as science. For example, what causes the common cold? Thousands of years ago, no one knew the answer. Fortunately, scientists never stopped trying to answer the question. We now know that a virus causes a cold because we developed the technologies necessary to find the answer i.e. microscopes. Should we have stopped asking what causes a cold back when we had no microscopes to help us devise germ theory to explain illness and diseases?

Atheism is a theory; in that it is an unproven belief system that is pinned on a refusal to believe in a central divine intelligence. It does make a claim...that there is no God. I agree with you about the Christianity thing though.

You can't just say, "atheism isn't a belief system because I don't believe in God." A negative belief system, or an anti-belief regimen, is still a belief system.

I've already addressed this on this thread in detail.

But I certainly never said this debate is "child's play"...I said that this discussion -which I'm admitting is very basic as I don not claim to be an intellectual nor particularly authoritative on this subject- is valuable as a discussion, but not as a means to any definitive end. Because NOBODY knows where we come from or what happens when we die. NOBODY.

I agree that nobody knows what happens when we die. But because we are all gonna die, isn't it one of the greatest mysteries worth pondering?

I think you are just reading what you want to read in my statements...I have known some extremely intelligent and kind people who are atheists. And unfortunately I have known some cripplingly stupid and cruel Christians.

Just think, if you would have said some atheists are morons rather than [all] atheists are morons, then we would be having this discussion. You can see that as being a good thing or a bad thing.

No one in my family reads this site, or even knows about it, LOL, and I have outgrown all of my friends and let them go, so I don't really give a f*** what people read or see here.

This forum exists outside of my actual life...I don't take it as seriously as many people here seem to think I do. I don't mean that as a cop-out; I do genuinely enjoy this "place" and I like posting, and I mean most of what I say, but don't give me the "think before you speak" lecture because -at least on this topic- I haven't said anything I regret.

No one in my family reads this forum either. I was just making a general statement about the nature of the internet being public and permanent. I have learned that what I say now, I may come to regret later when my circumstances change. And thus, I try to be a little more conservative in my comments than I used to.

 

[realitybites]

In order to be an atheist do you have to be self righteous?

No. My apologies for my tone.

 

[realitybites]

I hope there is a heaven just so all the sanctimonious atheists have to spend eternity with the evangelical Christians.

That's cruel.

 

[Skylarker]

That's cruel.

It isn't cruel. It's honest. She isn't attacking you personally; or if she is, I don't read it that way. You are telling me you don't see a smugness in atheism?

 

[Iona Mink]

It isn't cruel. It's honest. She isn't attacking you personally; or if she is, I don't read it that way. You are telling me you don't see a smugness in atheism?

True. Really I had Dawkins in mind.

 

[realitybites]

Why do you make a division between "natural and unnatural" where physical reality is concerned?


Bullshit of the highest order. Except maybe for Santa.

What "evidence" will you recognize? Photographs, video, eyewitness accounts that pass polygraph tests? Unexplainable changes in magnetic fields and temperature and soil, as measured by mechanical instruments? Inexplicable sound recordings where there is no evidence of fakery or tampering?...what do you count as "evidence?"

Let me guess...all of those people, the hundreds and hundreds of thousands who have had what they consider paranormal experiences..ghosts, UFOs, etc...including policemen and airline pilots...are either crazy, lying, or mistaken, right? Every single one. Sure. Of course.

Because NOTHING happens that science can't get its obtuse little head around...we'll just write it all off as fake...as "children's stories." Right?

Just like Santa Claus.

I never used the word unnatural. I said, supernatural. Supernatural is defined as that which is not subject to the laws of nature, or more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.

Evidence is everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. This includes direct evidence i.e things we can gather with our senses. Secondly, it includes indirect evidence i.e. things we can gather using tools such as telescopes and microscopes. And lastly, it includes things we gather using models--tangible or mathematical.

 

[Skylarker]

I never used the word unnatural. I said, supernatural. Supernatural is defined as that which is not subject to the laws of nature, or more figuratively, that which is said to exist above and beyond nature.

Evidence is everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. This includes direct evidence i.e things we can gather with our senses. Secondly, it includes indirect evidence i.e. things we can gather using tools such as telescopes and microscopes. And lastly, it includes things we gather using models--tangible or mathematical.

Yeah but a lot of so-called "supernatural" stuff has been captured with such instruments.

 

[realitybites]

It isn't cruel. It's honest. She isn't attacking you personally; or if she is, I don't read it that way. You are telling me you don't see a smugness in atheism?

I was kidding. I was letting her/him know, how cruel to make me spend eternity with evangelical Christians. What ever did I do to deserve such a fate? She/he was just kidding as well. Sarcasm.